GR 35475; (March, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35475. March 16, 1989.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DELFIN BUSTOS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The case stemmed from a rivalry over a taxi-dancer. Delfin Bustos, his uncle Engracio Bustos, and Pablito Bungay were charged with the murder of Cristorey Lopez. The prosecution established that on September 18, 1968, inside a well-lit apartment compound, the three accused forcibly dragged the unarmed Lopez from an apartment. Witness Rodolfo Ortoleza, a 13-year-old boy, saw Bungay pinion Lopez’s arms while the Bustos duo flanked him. As soon as they exited the door, Delfin Bustos shot Lopez in the chest at close range with a .22 caliber revolver.
The mortally wounded Lopez was rushed to the hospital. En route, in a semi-conscious state, he made a dying declaration to his brother, Jesus, identifying his “rival,” Delfin Bustos, as the shooter and stating that Engracio had handed Delfin the gun. Lopez died shortly thereafter. The defense presented a different narrative, claiming Delfin and Engracio were merely present to look for a relative, heard a shot, saw a wounded man, and fled in fear. Delfin also admitted that his father later advised him to hide, which he did.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently proves the guilt of appellant Delfin Bustos for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder. The legal logic rests on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence against the defense of denial and alibi. The eyewitness account of Rodolfo Ortoleza was found credible, straightforward, and consistent on material points. His testimony was corroborated by the physical evidence of close-range firing. The Court gave full credence to the victim’s dying declaration, which met all legal requisites: it was made under a consciousness of impending death, concerned the cause of his injury, and the declarant was competent.
The appellant’s flight and concealment after the incident, coupled with his family’s attempt to settle the case, were deemed implied admissions of guilt. Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia). The circumstances—the victim being unarmed, forcibly restrained by accomplices, and suddenly shot at close range without any opportunity to defend himself—ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. This qualified the killing to murder. The penalty was affirmed, with an increase in the civil indemnity.